The atrocities in the Aceh War as alleged in the Tweede Kamer were the series of specific acts of violence against Acehnese non-combatants, prisoners and chiefs which H. van Kol laid before the Tweede Kamer on 16 November and 17 November 1897, and which formed the moral core of the case for his motion of enquiry. They are among the fullest catalogues of alleged Dutch war crimes in Atjeh to be entered into the Dutch parliamentary record during the war itself.
The first speech
In his opening speech Van Kol described the effect of the Dutch repeating rifles in the words of Dutch witnesses: it was “een lust om te zien hoe die bruine sloebers uit elkaar spatten” (a pleasure to see how those brown wretches burst apart), how the small bullets shattered the bones of “die kwaadwilligen,” and how the fear of the snaphan setan — “het geweer van den duivel,” the devil’s rifle — would teach the Acehnese to respect Dutch authority.
He quoted the phrase of Rutgers van Rozenburg about the practice of dividing fallen Acehnese in two “om hun entrée in den Turkschen Hemel te bemoeielijken” (to make their entry into the Turkish heaven difficult).
He then narrated the killing of Toekoe Tjoet Machmoed Lam Tenzah. On 16 May 1897, he said, one of these “heerschappen” was killed with his wife and children and seven followers as they slept, by the firing of volleys through the thin walls of the dwelling until every sound was silenced and they “een reiswijzer naar betere gewesten hadden verkregen” (had obtained a guide to better regions) — the phrase, and the date, taken from De Kroniek of 16 May 1897.
Van Kol said he would be silent about further horrors still at his disposal, having enough for his purpose, which was to point to the fearful demoralisation that followed from bloodshed. He added that the Dutch did not stand alone in such barbarities, instancing the cutting off of hands by the Belgians in the Congo when the negroes could not deliver rubber and ivory; the hanging of negro women by Germans; the executions of a thousand insurgents in the Philippijnen to the sound of music before Spanish ladies; the torture of prisoners in Cuba; and the shooting down of some three hundred Matabelen used as targets by the English.
Against this he set his tribute to the Acehnese: when those Acehnese champions, wrapped in a white shroud with arms crossed over the breast, let themselves be shot down calmly, one must have respect for such men, driven by motives other than malice, and acknowledge that those who could so die for their conviction were true jahid’s — witnesses and martyrs of their love for religion and fatherland.
The second speech
On 17 November Van Kol returned to the subject at length after Cremer had disputed his general terms. He first set out the legal framework, quoting the articles of the Conference of Brussels of 1874 — “il est interdit de mutiler ou de tuer un ennemi qui est hors de combat, et de déclarer d’avance qu’on ne fait pas de quartier” — it is forbidden to mutilate or to kill an enemy who is out of the fight, and to declare in advance that no quarter will be given — and the Dictionnaire général de la politique of M. Block, p. 1165: “tuer un ennemi qui se rend, ou qui est impuissant à se défendre est un crime déshonorant. Il en est de même des attentats commis sur des femmes et les enfants en pays ennemi.” — to kill an enemy who surrenders, or who is powerless to defend himself, is a dishonouring crime. It is the same with assaults committed on women and children in an enemy country.
He then declared that he would hold back a part of what had been communicated to him by competent persons who had been on the spot, facts that made the hair stand on end, and complained that ministers met such grave accusations — also formerly uttered by Des Amorie van der Hoeven and Goeman Borgesius — with “die berichten zullen wel overdreven zijn” or “daarvan is mij niets bekend,” while the whole of the Indies knew of them.
The catalogue he gave was as follows. Under the Netherlands flag defenceless men had been shot down and beheaded, women killed or raped, quarter refused, prisoners mercilessly killed, villages burned and harvests destroyed. Already on 27 July 1875 the commander in Atjeh had recommended “alle handelingen, die den vijand breuk doen,” and had ordered among other things the “verbranden van huizen, vernielen van kampongs.” Shortly before, a dagorder of the governor of Atjeh had had to enjoin abstention from cruelties against women and children. The latest Koloniaal Verslag spoke repeatedly of the laying of kampongs in ashes, of the destruction and burning of hiding-places, and of the extirpation of forests, so that the population found refuge only in the gespaarde kampongs.
The daughter of Wakil Joesoef had been taken as a hostage, and fathers had formerly been imprisoned in order to enjoy their daughters. Some fifty thousand persons sentenced to labour had, against all human right, been made to be killed by hostile lead, their sentences of imprisonment thus converted into death sentences — a thing, Van Kol said, from which even the Turks would recoil.
The Radja van Samalangan had been taken prisoner in a treacherous manner, having been promised rifles; the head of Bintara Peunang had likewise been arrested faithlessly; and with Toekoe Njak Amat the same had to all appearance been repeated in the previous month at Kroeng raja. Van der Heyden had caused Njahim to be shot though innocent, had written in pencil in the margin of a krijgsorder for the VI Moekims, XXII Moekims and XXVI Moekims that “er worden geen krijgsgevangenen gemaakt,” and was with his command “kassi mandie!” so cruel that Van Kol would rather not communicate it. Not long before, an old man, Joed Mohmed Lamtengah, had been carried outside on a bali-bali and then shot dead.
In one word, he concluded, “ons oorlogvoeren bestaat in branden en zengen, in moorden en verwoesten” — our warfare consists in burning and scorching, in murdering and destroying — and thereby the Dutch came daily into collision with the lois et coutumes de la guerre accepted by all European peoples.
Cremer’s answer
The Minister of Colonies Cremer answered under the heading the pamphlet prints as Wreedheden goedgepraat (cruelties talked away). He compared the situation to a street disturbance at home in which quiet passers-by who had nothing to do with the affair might receive blows: so in Atjeh it might happen that women and children watching a fight from a distance were struck, since “men heeft een afgeschoten kogel niet meer in zijne macht.” — one no longer has a fired bullet in one’s power. Of cruelties committed in cold blood he had heard nothing and did not believe they had been committed; the Dutch lads, the foreigners among whom so much good was hidden, the rather gentle Javaantjes and the Amboineezen would not perpetrate cruelties in cold blood.
He described the departure of the expedition to Segli as reported to him: a general excitement prevailed among the soldiers as they marched out; short addresses were delivered by the battalion commanders reminding them of their duty towards Queen, fatherland and colours; the Christian natives were addressed in simple words by their own voorgangers, and these words were greeted with great cheering — not the cheering of bloodthirsty animals, he insisted, but testimony to a cheerful and glad acceptance of the heavy task they were going to fulfil at the risk of their own lives.
On 17 November he added that he ranged himself entirely on the side of Kuyper, who had said that if concrete cases were demonstrated the monopoly of indignation would belong to no party in the chamber, and quoted the words with which the Minister Bergsma had closed an extensive argument on 22 September 1896 in answer to a question of Goeman Borgesius: that the exchanged telegrams showed sufficiently that the Netherlands and Indies governments were both most strongly opposed to mutileeren, that if this isolated case had occurred it was not wholly inexplicable in an army composed of different elements, that it would certainly not happen again, and that the Governor-General had forbidden it in the strictest terms.
Kuyper’s position
Kuyper declared that he fully endorsed what Van Kol had said about cruelties committed, “indien metterdaad die feiten zoo zijn,” and that he was convinced that if such facts, provided they were concretely and clearly proved, were communicated to the chamber, there would not be one member of any party who would hesitate for a moment to pronounce a severely condemnatory judgement, and that no Dutch Minister of Colonies was conceivable who would not use all his powers to stop such barbarities immediately. One must not therefore adopt the appearance, he said, that bearing witness against them was the particular privilege of the three socialist gentlemen.
See Also
- H. van Kol
- J. T. Cremer
- Abraham Kuyper
- Toekoe Tjoet Machmoed Lam Tenzah
- Toekoe Njak Amat
- Radja van Samalangan
- Njahim
- Joed Mohmed Lamtengah
- Wakil Joesoef
- Karel van der Heijden
- Brussels Conference of 1874
- Dagorder of the Governor of Atjeh on cruelties against women and children
- Atjeh debate in the Tweede Kamer (16-17 November 1897)
- 16 May
- 27 July
- 1897
Source
Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer: Debatten bij de behandeling der begrooting van Nederlandsch-Indië voor 1898, uitgave van de Sociaaldemokratische Arbeiderspartij in Nederland (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897). Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, Br P95-178, pp. 10–11, 59, 62–64, 71–72, 79–80.
Acknowledgement of sources. The material in this article derives from Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer: Debatten bij de behandeling der begrooting van Nederlandsch-Indië voor 1898 (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897). Dutch passages are quoted in the original with an English rendering.